Jump to content

Talk:Fraser Valley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whatcom County

[edit]

I've heard some sources say the Fraser Valley extends as far south as Bellingham, in nearby Whatcom County. In fact, most populated areas of Whatcom County are geographically part of the Fraser Valley, as is the Lower Nooksack River Basin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.220.248 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the Fraser drainage doesn't extend farther south than slightly into the US on Sumas Prairie; but the Fraser Lowland, that's a different matter and I suppose needs an article; "Fraser Valley" is a bit of a culture-area, too, like the San Fernando Valley; another similar usage is Columbia Valley meaning only the very uppermost part of the Columbia basin, near the Rockies.Skookum1 (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oo, just re-read that and realized that there's another Columbia Valley in the Fraser Valley - the rural agricutltural community (pop 150 max) to the south of Cultus Lake, up against the US border; Columbia Valley (Cultus Lake) probably should get written; but mind you I've meant to get at teh whole series of rural communities in the Fraser Valley that don't yet have articles; and its regional history is ripe ground for article-creation and bios.Skookum1 (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

I'll start the merge here, although I'm not sure which one should be the main title; I guess the other one because of Upper Fraser Valley, Central Fraser Valley etc, unless there's even a case for them as separate articles; certainly as definitions/subsections. Seems to be more meat on the other page; the Lower Fraser Valley is on the other hand a very different place form the Upper Fraser Valley; it might be useful to cover them separately article-wise, I'm not sure now. Thoughts, BC wikipedians?Skookum1 08:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fraser Valley. I agree with Skookum1 and would add that this article is unclear. It talks about the "Lower Fraser Valley" as being in the same location as the GVRD (which I believe is approximately true), then shows maps of the entire Fraser Valley under the heading "Lower Fraser Valley." The article is also unclear as to the dimensions of the "Central Fraser Valley," stating that some people say it is the area that includes Abbotsford and Mission and then stating that this is incorrect. Which then leaves the question: "Where is the Central Fraser Valley?" I have a phone book entitled: "Central Fraser Valley" that includes Abbotsford and Mission — which brings to mind the need for sources. I think that "Lower Fraser Valley, Central Fraser Valley and Upper Fraser Valley could be sections of the Fraser Valley article with redirects from those three topics to the main article. Sunray 15:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that whole paragraph was my addition last night, and any contradictions may be "syntactical mirages"; the CFV is Abbotsford and Mission (or as we used to think of it Mission-MSA or MSA-Mission) and it's alsopart of the Lower Fraser Valley; why this is I don't know but it's always been the way it is; never really thought about whether Deroche is Lower and Chehalis Upper, but it's mostly a southside distinction anyway; in the days when Abbotsford was Matsqui, Sumas and Abbotsford, the eastern part of Sumas, overtowards Yarrow and Greenville, might easily be considered Upper Fraser Valley. Again, the CFV is part of the LFV.Skookum1 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but I think you will be quick to see the illogic of that in an encyclopedia. If one has a "Central" region, it is logically between at least two other regions. We in the Upper Fraser Valley are very clear on our boundaries and west of Chilliwack and Chehalis is all "lower" to us. All the more reason to merge articles, IMO. If we are going to refer to the Central Fraser Valley at all (and I would suggest we do not), we will need a source or two (as we will for the boundaries of the "Upper" and "Lower" Fraser Valley. Sunray 17:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CFV is easily citable because of various organizational/government names associated with it over the years, and also in newspaper usages in the Abby and Mission papers. Logic in region names doesn't readily apply anywhere in the world - elsewhere I'm in a discussion about the distinction between Central Interior and Northern Interior of BC, for instance. All I know, being from Mission (Ruskin) is that Mission and Abby are considered Central Fraser Valley - come to think of it that was the name on our phonebook for years upon years - but we also considered ourselves to be Lower Fraser Valley; Chilliwack and on up was Upper; didn't know that about Chehalis...but right across the river is the western end of Kent, which is at least municipally-org wise Upper Fraser Valley; Lake Errock-Deroche I'd always considered "Mission" by default because they were within the school district, and are "outlying neighbourhoods" of "Greater Mission".Skookum1 18:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to muddy the waters even more. I've recently moved to Abbotsford from Alberta, and to me, the Central Fraser Valley brings to mind the Prince George region, not the lower mainland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilang (talk • contribs) 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Muddy the waters." I like that, coming from Prince George :-) Sunray (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for the sake of Brijang that Prince George is not in teh Fraser Valley, as that term is used, but in the Fraser Basin; in both senses of that term - one means the drainage basin, the other means a subregion of the Fraser Plateau in a purely geographic sense, which is the lower areas flanking the Fraser and its tributaries, lying below the level of the surrounding plateaus, and centred on Prince George. Like Columbia Valley, there's a difference between that and the Columbia Basin region; although the Columbia Basin doesn't ahve the dual meaning that Fraser Basin does. In formal ecoregion systems, Fraser Plateau and Basin complex is another context of Frszer Basin, though referring to the same second meaning, the Central Interior lowland focussed on Prince George. The Fraser Valley lies only below Hope, or Yale; kinda fuzzy there..."the Fraser Valley towns" really should include Vancouver, really, but don't - although lately New West has been named as such (though not Burnaby) - Other than Delta and Richmond, the old meaning was from Port Coquitlam and Surrey east; now Port Moody and Coquitlam, alongwith New West, are described as "Fraser Valley towns/municipalities" (even though Port Moody's not even in teh Fraser drainage....).Skookum1 (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is about time to take some action on this. I've supported to merge this into Fraser Valley. "Lower Fraser Valley" would then redirect to the former. Any concerns about this? I think we should decide this by February 15. If there is no consensus, we should just remove the merge tags. Sunray (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and remember to get back here by the 15th after considering it, or reconsidering it, given I proposed the merge in the first place so long ago. I'd say they're redundant and the Lower/Central/Upper thing can be explained in the article's lead, as well as the subtle distinctions between Fraser Valley, Lower Mainland, GVRD/Greater Vancouver (e.g. how PoCo is a "Fraser Valley town" but nobody there would consider it life "in the Fraser Valley", which lies further East, or why Richmond and Delta are "valley towns" when Burnaby and Vancouver, which also flank on the river, are not...; or the Chilliwack/Chehalis Upper vs Central/Lower; all can be in one article. citability, hmmm, but definitely part of normative BC usage even if illogical (i.e.g the Central/Lower conundrum, but it's like the "is Manitoba part of Western Canada or is it Central Canada?" thingamawhatzit). I'm sorta back but running on limited time; this one interests me and I may try and help with improving the page if I can (without access to my books for anyhthing needing citation; I'm in Nova Scotia....). No promises; but unless I can't come up with an objection to my own proposal, I say Support.Skookum1 (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And re the Prince George thing, that's the Central Interior, although I tend to think of it as the Northern Interior (PGers consider it Central; to me that's Williams Lake-Kamloops); calling anything above Hope as being in the Fraser Valley is a gaffe admittedly propagated by the national media and, as I've seen, in translated articles in other languages, but as a region name it's incorrect. Williams Lake is not in the Fraser Valley in the sense that phrase carries in BC, even though it's in the valley of the Fraser River. Just not in the area known as the Fraser Valley. It's why the term Robson Valley exists, to deal with the upper valley (where the mysteriously named and rugged-though-teensy Grand Canyon of the Fraser is, and which is nowhere near the Fraser Canyon. Yeah, so you just moved here from Alberta....might as well learn the language as she is spoke, OK?Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. I've listed this at Wikipedia:Requested moves since we have to blend the edit histories of the two pages. Sunray (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony: I've completed a cut and paste merge. The former "Lower Fraser Valley" article was a stub, and most of the content is already contained in the "Fraser Valley" article. I'm not sure what you want to do about the edit histories. Sunray (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No to merge - area is distinct physically, socially, economically, politically, environmentally... Thanks Hu Gadarn (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question/Clarification needed You mean to say that the Lower Fraser Valley is not part of the Fraser Valley? I'm from the area, I can assure you that it is.Skookum1 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re Sunray's year-old comment:
We in the Upper Fraser Valley are very clear on our boundaries and west of Chilliwack and Chehalis is all "lower" to us. All the more reason to merge articles, IMO. If we are going to refer to the Central Fraser Valley at all (and I would suggest we do not), we will need a source or two (as we will for the boundaries of the "Upper" and "Lower" Fraser Valley.
he's pretty well summed up the division line between the Upper and Lower, i.e. west of Chehalis, i.e. from Lake Errock west north of the river, and wsst of Chilliwack (presumably including Greenville but also including Yarrow); factor in that Central is part of the LFV and sees itself that way and also still refers to itself as the CFV - it can be mentioned in the article, but doesn't need a separate item; not just because of the old CFVRD and the phone book, either, though those are the two primary fact-cites (if the first is citable somehow, perhaps a mention is on the FVRD site?). About the CFV/rest-of-LFV/UFV boundary, having roots in Mission (at Ruskin Dam) I'd have to say the Maple Ridge-Mission boundary on the north side and the Matsqui/Langley (now Abbotsford/Matsqui) boundary on the south side - but including Aldergrove, I'd say (in the Abby/CFV phone book, or was). Maybe I'll see if I can draft up a rough map and then have someone make a nicer-looking copy of it; "original research" no, hopefully; maybe there's a map on the inside cover of the valley phonebooks to use as a basis? (which I don't have, I'm in Nova Scotia right now). Either that or the boundaries of the old CFVRD would do, excepting of course the highland areas to the North and theoretically including Aldergrove and the Maple Ridge half of Ruskin (and maybe Whonnock....hmmmmmmmm).Skookum1 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this merged? There were two votes for and two against. I look forward to a response beyond "I wanted to". Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's pretty simple, Hu - the Lower Fraser Valley is part of the Fraser Valley, and that's that; it's not "because I wanted to", it's because "that's what the reality is"....and redefining the "boundary" of the Central Fraser Valley, if there is one, the old CFVRD included Langley along with MSA (Matsqui-Sumas-Abbotsford). But these terms never had distinct boundaries, other than Upper/Lower, and "Central" was always part of the "Lower" Fraser Valley; again I don't know why, other than tons of local usage support that, for over a century in fact....Skookum1 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To what Skookum1 has said, I would add that one of the objections was merely technical (rather than content-related) and we resolved that. Sunray (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting, also, that I've realized in retrospect that Central Fraser Valley included Langley, particularly Aldergrove and Fort Langley/Glen Valley; this was before the expansion of the GVRD by which now Langley is now considered part of Greater Vancouver (as also Maple Ridge, which previously was only Lower Fraser Valley; the northside boundary of "Central" within "Lower" would seem to have been Albion maybe, or Whonnock; question for you, as an Upper Fraser Valleyite. Is Chehalis Upper or Lower? would seem to turn on a dime there; the Mission School District ended at Lake Errock, but I think included some kids at the Squawkum Reserve (though they were part of the St Mary's residential system I think); was Chehalis in the Agassiz School District? Not that SDs are how the terms "Lower"and "Upper" are divided; Sumas Prairie east of No. 4 or No. 3 roads (whatever they're called now) would seem to me have been "Upper" - maybe east from the Vedder Mountain substation (where the BCER/SRBC hits the foot of that mountain after crossing southern Sumas Prairie from Huntingdon, parallel to Vye Road).Skookum1 (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Needs to show what we mean by "Fraser Valley"; basin-wide's OK if the Lower Fraser is suitably highlighted, though.Skookum1 (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fraser Valley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fraser_Valley&oldid=1195399058"